“This is a documentary,” Ricciardi insisted, not objective journalism or a re-trial. “We did not set out to convict or exonerate anyone,” but to “look at the criminal justice system today.” Making a Murderer chronicles the arrests and convictions of Avery and his nephew, both found guilty of the 2005 murder of photographer Teresa Halbach. Avery had been pursuing a $36 million lawsuit against police after previously spending 18 years in prison on a wrongful rape conviction.

Averyis serving a life sentence after being found guilty of the 2005 murder of photographer Teresa Halbach, while he was pursuing a $36 million lawsuit against police after previously spending 18 years in prison for a rape he did not commit.

If so, it was lost on many viewers, though Netflix hit the marketing motherlode when not one but two petitions of outrage were created by fans insisting on Avery’s innocence and demanding his release. One petition was addressed to the White House, insisting President Barack Obama get Avery out of the slammer, though, of course, the Constitution does not give him that power, as Obama patiently noted. Petition signers clearly were based their anger on their viewing of the Netflix series, which some critics, including several TV news programs covering the case, have said withheld important information. “Clearly people were very affected by the series,” Moira said. “We’re trying to urge people to think more deeply about what the series is about.”

Earlier this month, Nancy Grace joined the anti-Making a Murderer media pile-on, adding her voice to those of Fox News, Investigation Discovery and NBC News in taking issue with the docu-series. HLN’s rush to air Grace’s Making A Murderer rebuttal got her out in front of Fox News Channel’s Making A Murderer rebuttal, Steven Avery: Guilty Or Framed?, and Investigation Discovery’s Front Page: The Steven Avery Story in partnership with NBC News’ Peacock Productions, that was announced earlier at TCA and is set to air late this month. Grace alone says she’s got no fewer than nine reasons she’s sure Avery murdered Halbach, and will reveal “crucial evidence that was not exposed” by the Making a Murderer directors.

“What we’re seeing is history repeating itself,” Ricciardi said today of that pile-on. “Now on a national scale, the media is demonizing this man. We documented the case as it was unfolding. We showed Steven Avery, warts and all, showed all of his priors…Just because someone is coming forward now with a narrative, their interpretation doesn’t make it factual, doesn’t make it truth.”

She insisted the 10-part Netflix series is not Avery’s “biography. “What we set out to do here was a checkup on the American criminal justice system and if it was any better at delivering truth and justice in 2005” than when Avery was previously (and falsely) convicted of rape.

During today’s panel, a critic noted that one of the previously pro-women interviewed on the series has reversed her stance and “claimed she was abused by him and he forced her to say nice things about her on camera.”

“I can’t say why [she] is saying that today,” Demos said. “When we filmed with her nine years ago, this is what she was saying to us. It is an accurate portrayal of what she was saying and feeling at the time.”

“Can you define what a fact is?” one TV critic finally asked the two directors late in their Q&A. Demos responded that Making a Murderer presents lots of information as “fact” along with the counter-arguments. “It’s muddy and we’re urging people to embrace that ambiguity and the complexity of these matters.”

14 Comments

“Can you define what a fact is?” one exasperated TV critic finally asked the two directors late in their Q&A.

Really? This from a journalist. How dibilitatating.

Anonimus • on Jan 18, 2016 6:39 pm

your conclusion is, sadly, a great assessment.

Wales • on Jan 17, 2016 3:41 pm

These filmmakers are the emperor’s new clothes. I read an early treatment for MAM that was willfully indifferent to the possibility that Avery could be guilty. I found it a little shocking, actually, and definitely cynical. They knew what would be docu-candy to an audience and went about building a MAM narrative around it rather than something more complex and balanced (or interesting, frankly).
It seems clear they weren’t really interested in the Avery case, except for what pulpy juice they could squeeze out of it. It leaves a bad taste in the mouth, and it’s gratifying to see people begin to unpack that.
If only they’d been smart about their work, or brave–or both.

Anonymous • on Jan 17, 2016 5:26 pm

these people should be jailed for making trash and airing it. The worst in the business.
Disgusting people. This does not belong anywhere but to remain as it was in the reserve and dignity of a courtroom.
It violates every oath that a lawyer or judge has given their profession.
Please take the show off the air.

g • on Jan 17, 2016 8:46 pm

off the air?? it’s on Netflix – aka the internet. What are you talking about?

Anonymous • on Jan 18, 2016 8:06 am

The Internet signals travel through
wires
not air??????????
What are you talking about.

Rick • on Jan 18, 2016 7:36 am

“Digusting people”? Is that you Donald Trump?

Anonymous • on Jan 18, 2016 8:44 am

This is the problem of off network/cable
shows, no staff of experienced entertainment legal experts and professionals prescreening
and authorizing material for viewers.
dateline and others have a long history the viewers can depend on.
this material is slander and fiction.

Whatever the facts of the case, this series is total catnip! I would prefer to think Avery is guilty because the alternative is to believe that 12 people on a jury were so stupid and blind that they willingly colluded with corrupt cops who framed an innocent man to wiggle out of a $36 million lawsuit that the cops’ insurance was not going to cover. (And the strategy worked, did you notice that?)

Sounds like that lawsuit would have pretty much bankrupted a small Wisconsin town. Is that the real reason why the jury sent an innocent man back to prison? This is like watching some latter-day pagan ritual, pillorying the community outcast to ensure the Sun God of Justice shines a favorable light on everyone else. Hmm.

If you watched the 10 hour series, which basically shows live footage at the time of the trial, I’m not sure you can rationally come away with the opinion that the filmmakers generated biased material. Ken Kratz speaking at his own new conference, 8 months before the trial with what turned out to be a fantasy crime scene depiction, is not being portrayed incorrectly. It’s his own words. They didn’t make this up…Ken Kratz poisoning the local jury pool with a fictitious story of what happened to Teresa Halbach. In the end…not enough to convict either one based on reasonable doubt.

Supra • on Jan 18, 2016 4:26 am

I don’t think the filmmakers deserve such harsh criticism. I felt their main point was to show the troubling aspects of the criminal system as it played out in the Avery & Dassey case. Including the left out pieces of “key evidence” that Nancy Grace & others are using to try to discredit them would not have have changed the things that make it seem like the police might have planted evidence & the confession of Dassey may not be reliable nor his defense fair. Even if it is clear Avery is guilty (which I think he probably is), it does not change my opinion that there is still a lot to be upset about in how the police & lawyers handled the cases (especially in regards to Dassey), & the docuseries is still fascinating. If the filmmakers are to be criticized, other shows like Dateline, 48 Hours, & Nancy Grace should receive the same for having their own biases & leaving out evidence also.

Rick • on Jan 18, 2016 7:50 am

With Nancy Grace, think about Duke’s Lacross team. She, like procecutor Kratz, like to try to convict people in the court of public opinion by using the media instead of allowing for fair trials. Perhaps people don’t like what the mirror is showing them with regards to how our justice system actually works for people who are not pillars of their community.

Nakia Akins • on Jan 18, 2016 10:09 am

I have watched 8 of the 10 episodes so far and at times I think he’s guilty and at times I think he’s not which in my opinion is an indication that there were no biased information presented by the film makers. For every one person that believes he is innocent there is a person that think he’s guilty. I am certain that he did not receive a fair trial which I think was the main point of the film.

Anonymous • on Jan 31, 2016 4:18 pm

what ever happened to “beyond a reasonable doubt”? How do you even think he got a fair trial with so many unanswered questions?